FIRM OF M/S. PEARE LAL HARI SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER
Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 438; 1958 INSC 37
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS , VIVIAN BOSE, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR, S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
1958 INSC 37. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1958-04-07. FIRM OF M/S. PEARE LAL HARI SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
438 SUPREME COUitT REPORTS [1959) BosE J. -I agree except that I prefer not to express an opinion about the validity of the power conferred on the State Government by s. 6(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, to amend the schedule in the way in which it has been amended Pradesh here. I would leave that open for future decision. Appeals allowed. FIItl\I OF M/S. PEAitE LAL HAitl SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHEit • (S. It. DAS C. J. , VENKATARAMA AIYAR, s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE JJ. ) Sales Tax-Building contracts-State's power of taxation on supply of materials in construction works-Whether building contract comprises a distinct agreement for sale of materials-East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, z948 (East Punjab XLVI of z948), ss. ; tions, but they are unsubstantial and may be shortly disposed of. ·One was that in the definition of "turnover " in s. 2 (j), cl.
(ii) which is what is applicable to the present case, there is no reference to sale of goods, and that, accordingly, even if Entry 48 in List II is to be interpreted in a wide sense, the provision as actually enacted does not, in fact, tax the supply of materials in works contracts, treating it as a sale. But the charg-ing section is s. 4 (1), which n1akes it clear that the tax is on the gross turnover in respect of sales effected after the coming into force of the Act, and the obvious intention is to include the supply of materials in works contracts within the category of taxable turnover. It was next contended that the definition of" dealer " ins. 2(d) required that the person should be en~aged in the business of selling or supplying goods, that the petitioners who were building contractors were not engaged in the business of selling or supplying goods but of constructing buildings, and that therefore they were not dealers within that definition, and that as under s.
4 the tax could be imposed only on a dealer, the petitioners were not liable to be taxed. But if the Sl. J1lply of materials in construction works can be regarded as a sale, then clearly building contractors are engaged in the sale of materials, and they would be within the definition of "dealers " under the Act. There is no substance in this contention either. The petitioners, however, are entitled to succeed on the ground that the impugned provisions are not w,ithin the authority conferred by Entry48, and a writ of prohibition should accordingly issue restraining the respondents from taking proceedings for a~sessment of tax in respect, of materials supplied by the petitioners. ' in construction contracts. We direct the parties to . . bear their own costs. Petition allowed . • •
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.